Viscount Hailsham:

Moved by Viscount Hailsham

7: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—“Term limits and retirement age(1) A member of the House of Lords who has sat in the House by virtue of a life peerage for 15 years or more ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session of Parliament.(2) A member of the House of Lords who reaches the age of 85 during a Session of Parliament ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session.”

My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will be very brief. I will say out of an abundance of caution that I will not test the opinion of the House. However, I think there is a very strong case for introducing peerages for a limited period and a retirement period. There are two reasons for that.

First, membership of this House needs to be refreshed, otherwise you get inflationary numbers of an intolerable degree. My two proposals, of a retirement age and limited peerage duration, address that. If one is honest about this, one’s experience decays over a period of time. When I first came into the House, I knew rather a lot about criminal law. That was about 15 years ago, and I knew a great deal more when I went into the House of Commons in 1979. But one’s knowledge changes and, while I have an understanding of the general principles of criminal law, I do not pretend I have the expertise I previously did. So my first point is that one’s expertise declines.

Secondly, many of the issues one is wholly conversant with have changed. When I first came into Parliament, we knew nothing about transgender, artificial intelligence was wholly unknown and we did not have to worry about the internet. But now we have to regulate and debate the application of these matters to try to regulate AI, social media and debate transgender in a sensible way. It is much easier for those who are more conversant with these issues than my generation are to address them. That requires, in part, a refreshing of the membership of this House. For those reasons, I see merit in a retirement age and limiting the period for which peerages are created. So I beg to move but, as I said, I will not be testing the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I too see the benefits of a retirement age and therefore will speak briefly to Amendment 20 in my name, which is a variation on that theme. Whereas the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, proposes a retirement age of 85 in Amendment 7, my Amendment 20 is somewhat simpler. It proposes the introduction, only for newly appointed life Peers, of a retirement age of 80 or of a date 10 years after the Member’s introduction to the House, whichever is later.

Amendment 20 would thereby give effect to the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80. However, it would also introduce an important allowance for those who join your Lordships’ House after the age of 70. This is an important distinction, as it would do away with an arbitrary 80 year-old age limit and ensure that those such as serving Supreme Court justices, whose period of public service has a retirement age of 75, will be able to enjoy at least a full decade of service in your Lordships’ House, irrespective of the age at which they are appointed.

Noble Lords may recall the probing amendments in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his excellent speeches introducing them, along with the famous Blencathra Excel spreadsheets calculating the impacts of various retirement ages. He noted that a retirement age of 80, if implemented immediately, would have a draconian effect on numbers in your Lordships’ House, removing up to some 327 Members. My Amendment 20 avoids that guillotine, as well as the organisational shock that would result therefrom, by imposing the age limit only on the newly appointed life Peers appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958.

This would ensure that we do not instantly lose the valuable institutional wisdom among our more experienced Members, and it would not impact any current life Peers. Amendment 20 would thus fulfil Labour’s manifesto while tempering the age-based guillotine—at least for our existing Members—and gently introducing a retirement age that certainly seemed to find favour with the Majority of those present in Committee who expressed an opinion. On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to the response from the Leader of the House, particularly in light of the indication she gave earlier that there may be a Select Committee convened to consider just this topic.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 20, which was ably proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Let me remind the House again of the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto:

“Labour will … introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House”.

The next sentence says that Labour

“will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.

As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, so kindly pointed out, in Committee I attempted to help the Government by putting down a number of amendments on retirement ages, giving the House three options of retiring Peers at the age of 80, 85 or 90. A retirement age of 80 would have removed 327 Peers, which was far too draconian. I think that is why the Labour Party suddenly dropped the proposed retirement age of 80—it realised it would lose 95 of its own number. A retirement age of 90 would remove just 16 Peers and would not be worth it. A retirement age of 85 would remove about 185 Peers, and I think there was quite a bit of consensus in the House that that figure was about right. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, then made this refinement, which makes a lot of sense and is a vast improvement on my suggestions. I think he also had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Burns, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—I hope I am not doing them a disservice by misquoting them.

I have not tried the patience of the House by tabling those amendments again tonight, but I suggest that the solution to the objections we will hear from the Government at the end of this debate explaining why we cannot do this lies in my Amendment 14 in the next group, which I will elaborate on then. The Government will reject these amendments—and next week will probably reject Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on non-attendance—on the grounds that they are too complicated for primary legislation, that there are a lot of loose ends still to be tied up, that there are unforeseen consequences, that we must consult goodness knows how many people and organisations before we legislate and, of course, that there must never be any amendments to this sacred Bill, no matter how meritorious.

Apart from the last two bogus points, there is merit in the Government’s arguments. We do not have the minutiae of how a retirement scheme at about 80, with amendments and tweaks, would work. Would it be on a Peer’s birthday or at the end of the Session or the Parliament? As for consultation, I submit that there is not any single person or organisation who knows the slightest thing about the retirement of Peers compared with all the current Peers in this House. We are the people to be consulted. I accept that we do not have the minutiae of retirement provisions ready to put in the Bill or any primary legislation.

The Leader gave a wonderfully clever speech in her opening remarks. We have been sold a wonderful pup with this special Lords Select Committee, which will report on a range of things. The three crucial things that the House was interested in when we dealt with these amendments were: a retirement age of some sort, dealing with non-attendance and—this is a trickier one that there was some support for—Peers who do not participate. The Lords Select Committee will report on a wide range of things, with probably up to 20 recommendations. Do we seriously think that any Government will implement the recommendations of the Lords Select Committee?

Of course, I take the Leader at her word—she is a thoroughly honourable and noble lady—but I do not think that any Government will implement a new Bill on changes to the House of Lords because of the experience they have had with this one. Any new Bill seeking to limit it to a few things can be amended for a whole range of things. I also believe it would be wrong to set these things in stone in primary legislation when it would be impossible to amend them until we got another Bill. Therefore, I suggest that we will need a Bill with a special power, whereby we can introduce rules on retirement, attendance and participation, and then amend them when circumstances change. I will address that point in Amendment 14.

My Lords, I observed in Committee that everything in life tends to have a retirement age, so I feel that it is vital to bring in Amendment 20, or something like it, as part of the modernisation of the House.

I will make only two points. The first is in respect of the cliff edge. In organisations that I have worked in, we have often done mergers and acquisitions and had cliff-edge problems with people. It is generally the case that an organisation that expels the seasoned and the good—expelling the human capital that it has bought—without replacements right away, is an organisation that weakens itself. In our House we have people aged beyond 80 —we now know that there is a large number, thanks to the spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and, were we to show them the door, that would be very weakening.

This has an elegance in it, because it does not expel anybody but sets down the premise for the future. It is the route that is peculiarly British, in that it was chosen, as we have heard, by the senior judiciary when they did the same thing many years ago, and indeed by the bishops when they brought in a retirement age. In both of those circumstances—I have spoken to people who were around at the time—the people, in any event, chose an earlier retirement age. So we would smooth out the great problem of the cliff edge.

My second and final point is about the wrinkle that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has cleverly introduced about the 10-year minimum alternative. From the Cross-Bench perspective—and indeed, through us, from the House’s perspective—this is a very good wrinkle. The Cross Bench has to provide quite a lot of judges. We need to provide judges for Special Public Bill Committees, the Ecclesiastical Committee and other purposes, for which we are lucky to have members of the senior judiciary on the Cross Benches—I am looking at at least one here—who are very valuable to the House. The trouble is that the Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75 so, if they can get trained up only by the time they are 77, say, we will have them for a very short period of time. So it is extremely helpful for us if the senior judiciary gets at least 10 years at bat. That is helpful for the Cross Benches and the House.

When I was at the Bar school, I was told that the judge only ever hears the point the third time you make it. I have now made this point four times. The Leader was pointing out that we are all judges and that we are here for judgment. I hope that noble Lords will ponder, for the fourth time, that this might be a good point.

My Lords, I recognise that this country rather likes retirement ages, but I am afraid I do not share that view. I think of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who recently retired when he was, I think, 93—someone says he was 97; even better. He was absolutely as sharp as a tack until the time that he stood down. His contributions to this House were memorable. He was a very serious man in every way and people listened to him in this House. To think that we would put in place a system that would have got rid of Lord Mackay fills me with absolute horror.

If we want to reduce the numbers, I have never understood why a committee of this House turned down the idea of internal elections. We all know who are the people in our parties who do not come, who do not contribute and who play very little role in this House. Why not allow us to elect them out and reduce numbers that way? Then we would not have this arbitrary business of saying that, because someone has reached a retirement age of X, that is the reason why they should go.

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had summed up the situation at the end of Committee very well when he said that there was a broad agreement across the House that we needed to act on attendance, participation and retirement. I reckoned without the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but, having sat through those earlier debates, I suspect that he is in a relatively small minority in your Lordships’ House. If we think that we need to move on those issues, the key question is how we can do it expeditiously and with the best likelihood of getting an outcome that your Lordships’ House wishes to see. In my view, one way that will not achieve that is to expect to do it all via primary legislation, for two reasons.

First, no Government will want to put before your Lordships’ House a Bill with a raft of provisions for further relatively minor changes, because they have seen what has happened this time. I would not fancy being the Leader of the House who went to the Cabinet committee to explain why another Bill dealing with all these things was a priority for the Government. The other argument, which I have made on a number of occasions, and for which I apologise to noble Lords, is that I do not want the House of Commons deciding what constitutes proper attendance and participation by Members of your Lordships’ House.

To take up some of the proposals that we have just heard, if you were to say to MPs that 85 was to be the par for retirement, you would be more likely to get them to pass something saying that it should be 70, because 85 is so far beyond any retirement age for anything of which I am aware that it appears almost ridiculous to people outside your Lordships’ House. This is not to say that we do not have, and have not had, many Members over the age of 85 who have been extremely impressive well beyond that age, but there are reasons for a retirement age that go way beyond competence. Retirement ages are very often introduced in order to see a throughput of people, get new experience in and prevent an organisation living off its past. That is why retirement ages are very often introduced, and is one reason why we need a retirement age here.

If I am right in thinking that we should not be looking to the Government to produce a Bill covering all these things, how else do we do it? My view is that we can do quite a lot of it via our own Standing Orders. The way to get to the point where we can change the Standing Orders is, in my view, the one that the Leader of the House has proposed.

If we have a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with strict terms of reference and strict timetables, and which produces proposals, we can implement them very quickly on our own. We should decide what we consider a proper level of participation and what, in our view, constitutes an adequate level of attendance, and we should decide and recommend what we think is a sensible retirement age.

I understand why noble Lords are rather cynical about any proposal by any Government to set up a committee to do something that has no statutory powers to implement its recommendations, but there is such a swell of opinion on this issue about the need for change and a willingness on the part of the Government to accommodate it that I believe we should grasp that proposal. We should put forward good people from our groups to serve on it and task them with coming forward with agreed proposals in the quickest possible time. That is the way we should deal with all these issues. Therefore, I believe that we should not be looking to put amendments in this Bill that deal with one or all of them.

I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said almost everything I was about to say in the next group, but it is no less welcome for that. I just want to pick up the point about us all voting for each other. I was here in 1999, and it was a very unpleasant experience to have people constantly sidling up to you, who had never spoken to you before, and urging you to vote for them because they were such a good chap, to use a phrase. I really hope that we do not go back to that, but let us get on to the next group and we will talk more.

My Lords, I must declare a conflict of interest in this respect, because I am not quite certain—I have rather forgotten—but I think my 85th birthday is next weekend. I have to say that I am still employed; I am still producing experimental work, which is being published; I am still teaching; I am still training post-doctoral students and younger students; and I am still talking to children’s schools. The fact is that we are discussing a biological problem, which your Lordships seem to have neglected. If we had a rule that we only had people of a certain height in this Chamber and that, let us say, less than 5 foot 10 would not be acceptable, we would actually forget the Gaussian curve of normality and the statistics.

The fact of the matter is that, if we look historically, in the last 20 or 30 years of this House of Lords there were many people in this Chamber who were actually demented in their 60s, and far more in their 70s and 80s who were actually clearly not suitable mentally to be taking judgment on legal issues and issues of social care. The fact of the matter remains that medicine is changing, and there is no doubt, if we actually get successful medicines in future, as we in the Labour Party hope—we will have to see about that, of course—that we will see ages increase and people being mentally competent for longer. I suggest that an arbitrary rule at any age is probably inappropriate biologically, and we should find a more sensible way of considering how we might encourage people to retire when they are no longer competent to be Members of this House.

I cannot resist responding to that, because I agree with it. One of the problems we have is that the Whips do not have sufficient power to tap people on the shoulder and tell them it is really time, whatever age they are, if they are infirm. From that point of view, I agree: it is a matter not of age but of capability, and I think participation is the way to go to address that.

My Lords, those final comments compel me to draw your Lordships’ attention to the Amendment coming up later on power of attorney, which tries to look at the problem that we have all seen of some colleagues whose mental faculties, sadly, decline at earlier ages and who need to be encouraged to retire from your Lordships’ House.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for their Amendments 7 and 20, which refer to other commitments in the Labour manifesto that are not in this Bill. We were told that they are not in this Bill because of a piece of punctuation in the manifesto—a full stop, which got a lot of attention in Committee and on which I shall not dwell tonight. This touches on the anxiety of many noble Lords to understand what stage 2 might look like and when it might come, and to ensure that, if we are to remove some of our colleagues from your Lordships’ House, the House they leave behind will be improved in lots of other ways, as we have discussed repeatedly.

The two amendments take slightly different approaches but seek to do the same thing. They have a term limit and a retirement age. The noble Earl suggests a term limit of 10 years and a retirement age of 80; my noble friend suggests a term limit of 15 years and a retirement age of 85.

I should note that the term limit I propose is only for those who join the House after the age of 70.

I thank the noble Earl for the clarification. On the difference in ages, neither outlined why they had selected the ages that they chose, but I note that the noble Earl remains, until August, a member of the under-50s club in your Lordships’ House and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hailsham on his 80th birthday this February.

These are matters that the House or the Select Committee will have to consider carefully in the light of the very wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We are an ageing society and hope that we will all live many years longer and be able to contribute to civic life, family life and many other things in different ways. It is inherently arbitrary. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is a great example of somebody in his mid-80s still playing a very active part in your Lordships’ House. I responded to the debate on VE Day, when we were all moved to have among us the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is very active in your Lordships’ House in his 90s and a living reminder of some of the things this country and others have been through. It is very valuable to have people of all ages in your Lordships’ House.

The other significant difference between the two amendments is that the noble Earl’s would apply only to new entrants to your Lordships’ House. Following on from debates that we have had, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say something about her attitude to participation thresholds and retirement ages? Does she envisage those applying to current Members of the House or to new entrants? She was opposed to grandfather rights for people who are here as hereditary Peers, but would she afford grandfather rights to those here over the age of 80 presently who came to your Lordships’ House with a certain understanding and who have arranged their lives, houses and so forth on the expectation that they would play a full part until they choose to retire? If the hereditary Peers are to find their basis here changed at the end of the Session, should the same apply on the basis of age?

I note what the noble Baroness said in an earlier group about the Select Committee and we are grateful for that information. She said that she would discuss it in the usual channels and I appreciate that there are details to be ironed out, but can she say a bit more about her thinking on its composition? What would the party breakdown be? How many Cross-Benchers might there be? Would there be a mixture of hereditary and life colleagues? Obviously there would be no hereditaries if it is set up after Royal Assent, but might former hereditary Members be able to play a role in its work? Who should chair it? From which party or none would they come? Would Bishops sit on it?

The noble Baroness said a little about timeframes and hoped that the Select Committee could be set up within three months of this Bill achieving Royal Assent, although she was a little less ambitious on the conclusion of its work. She said:

“It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward”.

I know that that is a figure of speech, but would the Select Committee report in this Session? If the work was not completed in this Parliament, could the Select Committee be carried over into future Parliaments?

I appreciate that this is flurry of questions, even by my standards. However, what the noble Baroness said earlier begs a number of questions about how this Select Committee is going to be constituted, how it will work, and how it can really deliver on the points that my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Earl and others have touched on in this group. I look forward to her response.

My Lords, there is a sense of déjà vu all over again when we discuss these issues, as we have done a number of times. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has the distinction of proposing the only Amendment I have ever seen that was longer than the Bill itself, when he looked at the options. We are grateful for his contribution this time and for the spreadsheets he produced before.

I was slightly puzzled by a number of the points the noble Lord made, including that we had dropped things, the issue of retirement, and why we are going to consult so many people when this House knows best. I am not sure he was here when I spoke earlier but I hope my comments will reassure him. He also mentioned a number of phrases that he said I had said, but I never said them. I will check in Hansard; he may be mistaking me for somebody else.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a couple of really important points. He and I have spoken about judges and he knows I am aware of that issue. He also spoke about the issue of a cliff edge. This is partly the reason, as I have said many times before in your Lordships’ House, that we have a manifesto commitment that is very clear: those who turned 80 would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they did so. As others have pointed out in my discussions with them, one of the issues is that it is quite a significant cliff edge for the House if Members leave at the same time. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised that issue—sorry, there is a wasp that keeps flying at me.

In my discussions and consultations in your Lordships’ House, it has been very clear—notwithstanding some very good points made by those who are not supportive of a retirement age—that there is a general consensus around the House that a retirement age is a good thing, but it was a matter of two Peers and three opinions of how that could be implemented. Tonight’s debate has raised this issue and the noble Earl himself said it should be only for new Members rather than existing Members, and if you come in at a certain age you could stay longer. These are all variations on a theme. What is the best way of reaching a decision when you have variations? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on bringing forward legislation that said, “These are the various options. Discuss them and come up with something”. I went through the pretty unedifying experience of House of Lords reform in the House of Commons; MPs trooped through the Lobbies again and again, rejected practically everything and accepted nothing—we got nowhere very fast.

The noble Lord and I discussed what the mechanism could be. I have been discussing this with other noble Lords and developing how the House could take a bit more ownership of the issues and decide what could be a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said the best people to look at this are Members of your Lordships’ House, who understand how the House works.

I am prepared to accept variations of an implemented manifesto commitment. I do not know how we implement a participation requirement. I have very strong views on how it might be done; I might not be right. Other noble Lords have made suggestions around attendance and participation. I think the noble Lord missed this point in my comments. When I mentioned a timetable for a Select Committee, I referred to moving at pace. It seems to me there is no reason why it could not be set up within three months of Royal Assent.

I said that I hoped that this time next year, the House could discuss any proposals coming forward from that committee. It may be sooner, it may be later, but I do not want to curtail any committee because it is for it to say, “This is what you’ve set us to do, these are the terms of reference you’ve given us, how long will it take us to do that?” So that is a discussion for the usual channels. It should be set up in the same way as any other committee of the House.

The noble Lord asked about hereditary Peers; he seemed to think they were leaving on Royal Assent. If he reads the Bill, he will find it is not on Royal Assent but at the end of the Session. That would be for the parties that nominate to make a decision on who they want on that committee. Noble Lords have said they are interested in this issue, but if they are genuinely serious about making progress on it, I would be very interested to hear what they say.

The noble Lord says that a lot can be done by Standing Orders. Maybe some things can, but it may be that other things need legislation. This could be one of the remits of the committee. If it needs legislation, then what better way to get legislation through your Lordships’ House than if we have a settled view on what the outcome should be?

I have discussed with noble Lords across the House whether there is a way that this House can come to a view on a way forward that we are broadly agreed on, that we can implement more quickly where we are able, and where we are not, that we have the fallback of legislation where there is agreement around the House. Sometimes the House says that we have to have legislation to do this—but if there are things we can do more quickly and more expeditiously, and the House agrees with that, why not do it? That is the purpose of setting this out, and I hope that answers the questions from noble Lords.

I know there are some noble Lords who think that if you come in at a certain age, it should be later, but the committee can look at those kinds of issues and would have the usual representation. It is important that we do not let these issues just drop away and that we do not just say that there are lots of options. Let the House reach a decision on this and do something about it.

I hope that assurance answers the noble Lord’s questions. I am sure that as time goes on, he will have many more—but those are the sorts of things we will come to as we try to set it up. If he has a better idea than a Select Committee to do it, I am open to suggestions, but I want Members of this House to take ownership of decisions that affect this House.

I am also mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—previously and this time—that if we send legislation to the other place with an age, it may have a different view. This is something that we can do more quickly, but if we have a settled view, I am sure the House of Commons would respect that as well.

I hope that, having heard that, the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can continue to look at this issue as we move forward.

My Lords, I very much welcome the suggestion that there should be a Select Committee addressing some of the issues covered by Amendment 7. With your Lordships’ consent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.